IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 October 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110008150 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests: * reinstatement in the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program with the 39th Brigade Support Battalion (BSB) of the Arkansas Army National Guard (ARARNG) * promotion to sergeant major (SGM)/E-9 with a date of rank of 2 January 2008 2. In the alternate, he requests correction of his records, including his DD Form 4 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), retirement orders, and retirement certificate, to show the proper rank/grade of master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 with entitlement to back pay and allowances. 3. The applicant states: * He submitted his promotion packet to SGM in October 2007 and would have been number 1 on the list had it not been for his chain of command sitting on his packet * In January 2008, while his unit was conducting range operations, he forgot to put his plates on his vest and his battalion commander verbally reprimanded him * His higher chain of command initiated an investigation that led to a summary court-martial that resulted in his reduction from MSG/E-8 to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 * He was subsequently moved out of his billet, denied leave or administrative support, flagged, barred (bar had since been removed), and had his security clearance suspended (clearance had since been reinstated) * In September 2008, he received nonjudicial punishment for allegedly making a false statement on his appeal of the summary court-martial * He ultimately requested retirement despite not being ready to do so and despite the financial losses of such action * His Article 15 punishment illegally stipulated that he would retire; he requested to withdraw his retirement packet but his chain of command would not act on his request * Other MSGs who were junior to him were promoted ahead of him despite outpointing them by several promotion points * His chain of command including his battalion and brigade commanders and brigade command sergeant major were all involved in illegal or immoral activities * The Judge Advocate General (TJAG) ultimately set aside his court-martial punishment and ordered his rights and privileges restored 4. The applicant provides: * DD Forms 4, for the periods ending 31 August 2010 and 26 March 2010 * Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial and allied documents * Orders 072-886 (Reduction to SFC/E-7) * DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)) and allied documents * Inspector General Action Request (IGAR) and response from the IG * 2010 SGM Promotion List * 2011 Decision by the Office of The Judge Advocate General * DA Forms 2A and 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) * Prior service DD Forms 4, selected awards or decorations, and a photograph CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's records show he was born on December . 2. He initially enlisted in the ARARNG on 23 January 1974 and held military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman). He served through multiple extensions or reenlistments and held various MOSs to include MOS 68J (Aircraft Fire Control Repairer), 67Y (Helicopter Repairer), and 93P (Aviation Operations Specialist). He was promoted in the ARNG to SFC/E-7 on 1 April 1993 and MSG/E-8 on 9 January 2001. 3. A 6 January 2002 memorandum to the applicant from the Commander, 87th Troop Command cited the, "commander’s inquiry directed by [the battalion commander] and recommended: reduction to pay grade E7; reassignment within the 87th Troop Command but outside of 1st Battalion, 114th Aviation; 12 months of probation, quarterly reviews and a reprimand placed in his "official personnel file." The Commander, 87th Troop Command stated that, should the applicant not accept those conditions, his case would be referred to the "Deputy Chief of Staff-Personnel (DCSPER) for a board and appropriate hearing." 4. On 15 January 2002, by memorandum, the State Administrative Officer, Office of the Adjutant General stated "I am proposing the following actions and I am providing you with a last chance to operate in an acceptable fashion in your ARARNG AGR position." 5. The applicant was to initiate a request to be administratively reduced; he would be reassigned within the 87th Troop Command but outside of 1st Battalion, 114th Aviation; and he would be on probation for 12 months; receive quarterly reviews and have a reprimand placed in his Official Military Personnel File. Should the applicant elect to not to "honor the terms of this agreement" his case would be referred to the DCSPER for a board and an appropriate hearing. He was to indicate acceptance or non-acceptance and sign and date the attached “Acknowledgement…Last Chance Agreement." 6. On 26 March 2002, by memorandum, the applicant requested to appear before a Reduction Board. However, he later acknowledged that he had acted inappropriately and entirely inconsistent with a Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) of his grade. He reviewed the battalion commander’s recommendations for reduction, a field grade reprimand, remedial leadership training and bi-monthly evaluation and found them, "strict but appropriate." He asked the Adjutant General to discontinue the elimination action and to support the recommendations of the battalion commander. 7. On 7 June 2002, the applicant authenticated a memorandum addressed to the Adjutant General accepting the administrative reduction from MSG/E-8 to SFC/E-7. Accordingly, on 16 June 2002, the Office of the Adjutant General, ARARNG, published Orders 167-001 administratively reducing the applicant to SFC/E-7, effective 15 June 2002. 8. He entered active duty on 20 January 2005 in an AGR status. He subsequently served in various units, including the 1st Battalion, 87th Troop Command, Camp Robinson; 935th Combat Support Battalion, Fort Chaffee; and 871st Troop Command. He was promoted back to MSG/E-8 on 1 May 2006. He was honorably released from active duty on 1 January 2008. 9. Prior to his release from active duty, on 17 December 2007, the Office of the Adjutant General, ARARNG published Orders 351-531, ordering the applicant to active duty for a period of 400 days in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). 10. Also prior to his discharge, on 20 December 2007, by memorandum, the DCSPER, ARARNG, notified the applicant that the ARARNG Medical MOS Retention Board (MMRB) evaluated his abilities to perform the physical requirements of his primary MOS (PMOS) 92A on 18 December 2007. Based on a thorough review of his most recent permanent physical profile and all other pertinent records, the MMRB determined he would be retained in his current PMOS. 11. He reentered active duty on 2 January 2008 in support of OIF. He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 39th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), Camp Shelby, MS. 12. On 5 January 2008, he was attached to HHC, 7th BSB Fires Brigade, Boonville, AR, for administration, pay, and training. 13. On 16 January 2008, the Commander, 39th IBCT ordered an Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Board of Officers) investigation and directed the appointment of an investigating officer (IO) to investigate the circumstances surrounding the applicant's failure to have his Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert (ESAPI) plates in his Individual's Body Armor (IBA) during the Mounted Convoy Lanes. 14. On 25 January 2008, having completed the investigation, the IO concluded the applicant willingly failed to insert the ESAPI plates into his vest and the plates were not in his vest on 12 January 2008. He failed to wear the required plates with the full knowledge and understanding that this action did violate the policy of conducting training in "Full Battle Rattle." 15. On 12 February 2008, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for the charge and one specification of dereliction of duties in that he negligently failed to insert the ESAPI plates into his IBA. The applicant was given a copy of the charge sheet on 14 February 2008. 16. On 17 February 2008, at the summary court-martial trial, the applicant did not object to the trial and was not represented by counsel. He pled guilty to the charge and specification. The court sentenced him to a reduction in rank by one grade and forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for 2 months. 17. On 26 February 2008, by memorandum with supporting statements to the Commander, 39th IBCT, the applicant's defense counsel requested clemency and stated that the reduction was too severe. 18. On 3 March 2008, the 39th IBCT Brigade Judge Advocate conducted a legal review of the summary court-martial and post-trial submission for clemency. He found it legally sufficient. 19. On 5 March 2008, the convening authority approved the sentence but suspended the forfeiture of pay for 2 months for a period of 6 months. Accordingly, on 12 March 2008, Office of the Adjutant General, ARARNG, published Orders 072-886 reducing the applicant to SFC/E-7 effective 5 March 2008. 20. The applicant deployed to Iraq on 14 March 2008 and he would redeploy from Iraq on 20 October 2008. He served in MOS 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist) and was attached to the 4th Infantry Division. This was his first deployment overseas. . Between 29 June and 11 July 2008, an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation was conducted to investigate the allegations that the applicant made two false official statements in his appeal of the summary court-martial in that he claimed that "this was the first time that I had ever had any adverse action in my career" and "my awards include… the Bronze Star Medal." 22. The IO found the applicant had violated a condition of his prior suspension. Specifically, he made a false official statement under a lawful oath. The IO recommended vacating the suspension of the $250.00 per month. 23. On 26 August 2008, the 39th IBCT commander initiated a DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Action (FLAG)) against the applicant for adverse action. 24. On 30 August 2008, at a closed hearing, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for making two false official statements. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $2,250 pay per month for 2 months. 25. On 3 September 2008, he appealed his punishment and stated that his statement regarding the Bronze Star Medal was based on a clerical error that led him to believe he was entitled to wear this award and that he had not earned the Bronze Star Medal. Additionally, his second statement should have been that "this was his first adverse UCMJ action in his career." With his appeal, he provided a statement from his defense counsel who alleged that as a condition of the Article 15, the applicant would have had to submit his voluntary retirement. 26. On 30 September 2008, the Commanding General, 4th Infantry Division, determined that there were errors in the processing and punishment of the applicant's Article 15. He granted relief in that he dismissed the second specification, reduced the forfeiture of pay to $2,000.00 pay for one month, and ordered any condition related to the submission of voluntary retirement canceled. 27. On 14 October 2008, he submitted a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) wherein he requested to retire from the AGR program, effective 15 February 2009. 28. On 13 November 2008, the Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training Center, Camp Shelby, AR, published Orders 316-506 assigning or attaching the applicant to the Medical Retention Center for a period of 84 days, effective 13 November 2008. 29. On 5 January 2009, by email to his human resources sergeant, he requested to cancel his retirement request. He stated that he was at a Fort Gordon, GA, and in need of surgery on his back. He added that he had extended until 2011 and when he gets done, he would resubmit his retirement request. 30. On the same date, his human resources sergeant responded by stating there was no need to cancel his retirement request. His current request would be adjusted, as needed, in order to provide him with the time required to recover from any medical procedure. 31. On 5 February 2009, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, MO, published Orders A-02-904076 ordering the applicant's retention on active duty for a period of 358 days (amended to 386 days), ending on 28 January 2010 (amended to 26 March 2010), to participate in the Reserve Component Warrior in Transition Medical Retention Processing Program for completion of medical care and treatment. He was assigned to the Warrior Transition Battalion, Fort Gordon, GA (later amended to the Arkansas Community Based Health Care Organization (CBHCO) with duty in Lonoke, AR. 32. On 5 February 2010, the 39th IBCT commander removed the flag, effective 5 February 2010, from the applicant's records. 33. He was honorably released from active duty on 26 March 2010 by reason of having completed his required service. The DD Form 4 he was issued for this period of service shows he completed 2 year, 2 months, and 25 days of active service and he had 20 years, 2 months and, 25 days of prior active service. His rank and grade are shown as SFC and E-7 respectively. 34. Prior to his release from active duty, on 23 March 2010, the Office of the Adjutant General, ARARNG published Orders 082-003, ordering him to active duty in an AGR status from 27 March 2010 to 30 September 2010, for the purpose of AGR Tour Continuation after Demobilization. He was assigned to HHC, 39th Support Battalion, Hazen, AR. 35. He reentered active duty on 27 March 2010. 36. On 24 May 2010, the U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Fort Sill, OK, published Orders 144-1317, retiring him from active duty effective 31 August 2010 and placing him on the retired list in his retired rank/grade of SFC/E-7, effective 1 September 2010. 37. He retired on 31 August 2010 and he was placed on the retired list in his retired rank/grade of SFC/E-7 on 1 September 2010. The DD Form 4 he was issued shows he completed 5 months and 4 days of active service during this period with 22 years, 11 months, and 5 days of prior active service. This form shows in: * Item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) - "SFC" * Item 4b (Pay Grade) - E-7 * Item 12i (Effective Date of pay Grade) - 2008 03 05" 38. He was also issued a National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of service) that shows he was discharged from the ARNG on 1 September 2010 and transferred to the Retired Reserve. He completed 34 years of total service for pay. This form shows in: * Item 5a (Rank) - "SFC" * Item 5b (Pay Grade) "E-7" * Item 6 (Date of Rank) - "2008 03 05" 39. On 3 January 2011, TJAG issued Action Pursuant to Article 69(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, wherein TJAG stated: In the summary court-martial case of United States v [Applicant, SSN, Unit], the accused's Application for Relief pursuant to Article 69(b), UCMJ), the record of trial, the entirety of the Application for Relief, specifically to include the assignments in errors, and all relevant documentation have been carefully considered. I find that the summary court-martial sentencing proceedings were not properly conducted, that the sentence adjudged was improper and the convening authority's action was improper. These errors either standing alone or taken as a whole materially prejudice the substantial rights of the accused under Article 59(a), UCMJ. The sentence, adjudged on 17 February 2008, and the action of the convening authority dated 5 March 2008 are set aside. The findings of guilty are affirmed. Only so much of the sentence as provides for forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for one month is approved. All rights, privileges, and property of which the accused has been deprived by virtue of the execution of the sentence and the convening authority action set aside will be restored. 40. On 14 February 2011, by memorandum, an official at the ARARNG Office of the IG notified him that after a review of the letters he provided from TJAG, the reduction in grade orders, and other miscellaneous documents, the official determined that although the letters state that they find the summery court-martial proceedings, sentence adjudged, and the convening authority's actions were improper, the findings of guilty were affirmed. 41. The applicant provides: a. His ARNG Enlisted Record Brief, dated 10 February 1999, that shows he was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 135th Aviation, North Little Rock, AR. Various hand-written entries are made on this form to reflect what appear to be promotion points for different categories of personnel qualifications. b. Memorandum, dated 16 February 2010, Subject: 2010 Sergeant Major Promotion List/Command Sergeant Major Leadership Selection Board, listing names, points, MOS, and status of those selected by the Joint Forces Headquarters Enlisted Promotion Board that was conducted from 2 to 4 February 2010. The applicant's name is not listed; however, he hand-wrote his name toward the top of the list and indicated he would be number 1. 42. Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion and reduction of enlisted personnel. Chapter 7 provides for promotion and reductions of enlisted members of the ARNG. a. Paragraph 1-27 states a Soldier must be a U.S. Army Sergeant Major Course (USASMC) graduate for promotion to SGM. Soldiers selected for promotion to SGM who are non-graduates of the Sergeant Major Course will be conditionally promoted. b. Paragraph 7-1b states the Enlisted Promotion System is designed to help fill authorized enlisted vacancies in the NCO grades with the best qualified Soldiers who have demonstrated the potential to serve at the next higher grade. It provides for career progression in line with each Soldier’s potential. For the NCO grades, it also prescribes the NCO Education System (NCOES) requirements for promotion. Soldiers must meet the NCOES requirements as outlined in paragraph 1–27 to qualify for consideration by a promotion board. c. Paragraph 7-2 defines best qualified as Soldiers selected over their peers by a selection board as best able to perform the duties at the next higher grade and fully qualified as Soldiers capable of performing all duties required in a worldwide field environment and meet all requirements for promotion. The whole person concept is an established idea of judgment based on the entire record of qualities, qualifications, accomplishments and failures, rather than on one single item as overriding in determining selection or rejection. d. Paragraph 7-4 states a Soldier is in a non-promotable status when the Soldier is under a FLAG or has a circumstance that requires a FLAG. The Soldier is in a nonpromotable status whether the FLAG is actually initiated and completed or not, for example, for completion of processing and punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. e. Paragraph 7-20 states to be eligible for consideration, selection, and promotion to SGM, Soldiers must be (1) considered and placed in the selection objective of the current promotion list. All Soldiers must go through the board process before they may be selected and promoted; (2) be in promotable status. The board will consider a Soldier who has a FLAG (regardless of type) in effect provided they are otherwise eligible for consideration, but the Soldier cannot be selected nor promoted until the suspension has been removed. This requirement is not waivable. The board will not see the FLAG action; (3) be participating satisfactorily in the active ARNG in the next lower grade; (4) meet the time in grade and time in service requirements in Table 7-1; (5) have a high school diploma, GED equivalent, alternate credential, or an associate or higher degree; (6) be qualified in the career progression MOS, promotion MOS or a feeder MOS for the position assigned and promoted into unless another standard is authorized in the ARNG Enlistment Criteria. f. Paragraph 7-20 (g) and (h) state for consideration for promotion to SGM, including concurrent appointment to CSM, individuals who are not graduates of the USASMC must be eligible to attend and complete the course. This includes the time in service requirements before maximum age or maximum years of service. Soldiers who were selected to attend but did not complete the course for any reason other than hardship are not eligible to attend the course again and, therefore, are not eligible for consideration or promotion to SGM. This criterion is not waivable, and exceptions to policy will not be considered. g. Paragraph 7-22 states Soldiers may be promoted into vacant positions on the basis of selection by a promotion board and placement in the selection objective of a promotion list, except for the actions in section III of this chapter. All documented positions, including those on carrier unit identification codes (UICs), provisional units, and derivative UICs that are part of the States structure are valid for promotion purposes subject to the policies of National Guard Regulation 600–200 and other ARNG regulations. h. States conduct annual promotion boards for each grade and publish a promotion list. The selection objective will list in promotion sequence the best qualified Soldiers who will be assigned to current vacancies (within the State structure) in higher graded positions that go with the promotions per section X of this chapter. i. Paragraph 7-48 provides for a standby advisory board (STAB). It states the State Adjutant General or designee may approve cases for referral to a STAB. The STAB is used when a Soldier meets the conditions listed in the remainder of this paragraph. If a board is in session, comprised essentially as was the original board by which the Soldier was or should have been considered, they may be charged as a STAB to fully evaluate the Soldier’s record using the original board charge. The State Adjutant General may approve cases for referral to a STAB upon determining that a material error exists. The State will determine if a material error existed in a Soldier’s official records when the file was reviewed, or should have been reviewed had the error not precluded review, by a promotion board. Error is considered material when there is a reasonable chance that had the error not existed, the Soldier may have been selected. STABs are convened to consider the records of Soldiers: (1) Who are eligible per the original memorandum of instruction, is a member of the State ARNG before the convening date of the board, and because of a material error the records were not reviewed by the regular board. (2) Whose records were reviewed by the regular board, were not selected for promotion, and whose records contained a material error that may have been a factor in non-selection. 43. Soldiers selected by a STAB will be integrated into approved promotion lists and promoted along with their peers in the sequence that would have occurred had they been originally selected. Only Soldiers who would have been eligible per the original memorandum of instruction as of the date of the board will be considered. Soldiers who did not meet or could not have met the criteria at the time of the original board will not be considered. Reconsideration normally will be granted when one or more of the following conditions existed in the Soldier’s official records at the time they were reviewed by a promotion selection board. Soldiers requesting reconsideration for reasons in paragraph 7–48i(2) through (5) will be granted reconsideration only for the most recent board before the Soldier’s request. In pertinent part, it states a reason for granting a STAB is when court-martial orders were filed in the Soldier’s record when the findings were "not guilty." DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends he should be reinstated into the AGR program and promoted to SGM with a date of rank of 2 January 2008. In the alternate, he contends his records, including his DD Form 4, retirement orders, and retirement certificate, should be corrected to show the proper rank/grade of MSG/E-8 with entitlement to back pay and allowances. 2. Shortly after his entry on active duty in January 2008, an investigation determined he violated the uniform policy in that he failed to insert the ESAPI plates into his IBA. Court-martial charges were preferred against him for dereliction of duty. The applicant pled guilty at a court-martial that sentenced him to a reduction from MSG/E-8 to SFC/E-7 and a suspended forfeiture of pay. He was reduced to SFC/E-7 on 5 March 2008 when the convening authority approved his sentence. 3. The applicant appealed the court-martial sentence. A second investigation determined that he made two false official statements in his appeal. Accordingly, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for making the two false statements. In September 2008, the appellate authority determined that there were errors in the processing and punishment of his Article 15. 4. He granted relief in that he dismissed the second specification, reduced the forfeiture of pay to $2,000.00 pay for one month, and ordered any condition related to the submission of voluntary retirement canceled. 5. Although the condition related to the submission of voluntary retirement was canceled, the applicant submitted a request for voluntary retirement on 14 October 2008. He was not coerced into submitting his retirement because the appellate authority removed the stipulation to retire in September 2008. He then requested cancellation of his retirement request due to medical reasons. His higher headquarters accommodated his request and told him his request would be adjusted to give him maximum time to recover. 6. Having been flagged through February 2010 and having submitted a request for retirement, it is not likely he would have been recommended for promotion to SGM. There is neither a recommendation for promotion nor evidence to support his contention that his chain of command withheld his promotion packet. But even if his promotion packet was submitted, his contention that he would have been number on the list is speculative at best. He may have been fully qualified but not necessarily best qualified. 7. There is insufficient evidence to show he was recommended or would have been selected for promotion to SGM. As such, he is not entitled to such rank. Additionally, having requested voluntary retirement, he is not entitled to reinstatement into the AGR program. 8. With respect to restoration of his former grade, TJAG ultimately found the summary court-martial sentencing proceedings were not properly conducted, that the sentence adjudged was improper and the convening authority's action was improper, and that these errors prejudiced the applicant's rights. Accordingly, TJAG ordered the February 2008 adjudged sentence and March 2008 action of the convening authority set aside. The findings of guilty, however, were affirmed. Only so much of the sentence as provided for forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for one month was approved and rights, privileges, and property of which the applicant had been deprived by virtue of the execution of the sentence and the convening authority action set aside were ordered restored. 9. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to correction of his records to show he was not reduced to SFC/E-7 on 5 March 2008, entitlement to back pay and allowances, correction of his retirement orders and certificate to show he retired in the rank/grade of MSG/E-8 with entitlement to retired pay at that grade, and correction of his DD Form 4 to show the rank/grade of MSG/E-8. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___X____ ____X___ ___X____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that the State ARNG records and the Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected, as appropriate, by: * Voiding Orders 072-886, issued by Office of the Adjutant General, ARARNG, on 12 March 2008, reducing the applicant to SFC/E-7 effective 5 March 2008 * Auditing the applicant's pay account and paying him the difference in back pay and allowances between SFC/E-7 and MSG/E-8 from 5 March 2008 to 31 August 2010. * Amending his retirement orders to show he retired in the rank/grade of MSG/E-8 effective 1 September 2010 * Issuing him an appropriate certificate of retirement showing he retired in the rank/grade of MSG/E8 * Auditing his retirement pay records and paying him the difference in retired pay between SFC/E-7 and MSG/E-8 from 1 September 2010 * Deleting from items 5a, 5b, and 12i of his DD Form 4 for the period ending on 31 August 2010 the entries "SFC," "E-7," and "2008 03 05" and adding the entries "MSG," "E-8," and "2006 05 01" respectively * Deleting from items 5a, 5b, and 6 of his NGB Form 22 the entries "SFC," "E-7," and "2008 03 05" and adding the entries "MSG," "E-8," and "2006 05 01" respectively 2. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to: * Restoration into the AGR program * Promotion to SGM/E-9 _______ _ X_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110008150 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110008150 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1